Michelle Malkin Pummels Point Home On The View

I LOVE MICHELLE MALKIN!!Those View crones make me want to projectile vomit.

“But what about Bush…..” the mantra of all those idiots. Who cares about Bush, he is not in office spending America into the toilet. How about they first answer the questions about how Obama has lied and then you can bring Bush up.

ah Michelle… that was like shooting guppies trapped in a plastic bowl. LOL

My favorite, however, was the applause when it was announced *everyone* in the audience was getting a Malkin book to take home. Probably one of the best promos she could have done, and one of the best educations they’ll receive. Too bad it couldn’t be teamed with Liberty and Tyranny for a double whammy.

If they ever made a movie based on these three + Barbara it would infringe on one already released. But maybe they could get away with a takeoff on the title. Dumb, Dumber and Dumerest. The old volumes of the Encyclopedia of Britannica do not contain enough descriptive words to express the just how classically stupid these woman are.

The three stooges may not have been listening, but it is obvious by the applause at the end of the segment that the audience was. Michelle took full advantage of her “teachable moment,” cramming it full to overflowing with good, solid information and bringing the disinfectant of sunlight to the corruption of the current administration. You go, girl!

i hate that show so much i almost didnt watch the clip, glad i did. mm is so respectful she made that joy look like a hick, loved it.

Lulu, you should change your name to dum-dum. We fought the wars we needed to fight, NO spy was outed by Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, and the only ones that lied and to continue to lie to the people are loons like you. If you had an ounce of intelligence you would understand voting for McLame doesn’t mean you aren’t a lib or at best suffering from BDS.
Now please, go learn some facts about the things you posted on before you go and spray more stupid onto this site.

Malkin was rude?? By gawd, what an odd perspective. I suppose Joy was the delightful hostess? You picked an apt screen name, Lulu… You sure know how to spin them whoppers.

Perhaps you’ll look at the below graph and explain to us all how we are massively in debt for two wars that are between 3-4% of the GDP for the entire five year conflict. A conflict, I might add, that those Americans being held in Iranian custody must be happy to have had happened, because Saddam sure wouldn’t be lifting his pinkie to help get them out. ’tis ever so nice to have an ally stashed inbetween Iran and Syria. But I guess you didn’t think of that, eh?

And while you’re at it… see that really *big* fat line to the far right? That 9 trillion figure? That’s the spending the Big Zero and his Congressional comrades-in-destruction have spent for 2010-2020 in mere months. Spend out out of bankruptcy… right. Try that yourself and see how far it gets you.

Maybe you… who’s whining about the Iraq costs which are pittance by comparison and have added mightily to our national security (remember that ally in the middle of Iran/Syria bit?), will let us know how all those filthy rich and evil Americans will be paying that spending bill off. Take your time. Google your brain cell out. We’ll wait patiently for your cogent response and fuzzy math.

Lulu: MM did not shout but she did hold the floor despite their attempt to overwhelm her. She knows what she’s talking about without a script or teleprompter. I became a fan beginning with the fight in the 90’s against illegal immigration. As a former life long democrat, I voted for McCain/Palin too…mostly because of Sarah because the Obama alternative was too horrible to contemplate. You see, I grew up after the 60’s and I recognize what that mind set is all about. You can’t be a mature adult and still believe in that crappola.

Joy: “…went into a war that was uncalled for…”

I get so infuriated when I hear any liberal call the war in Iraq, “unwarranted, unjust, illegal, wrong, uncalled for, blah-blah-blah.”

Can anyone hear tell me exactly what UN resolution we are supposedly in violation of?? By what basis are they making these claims? I’m so sick of their ignorance.

Have those idiots forgotten that we we’re attacked??

I know this wasn’t exactly the point of this post but that typical, moronic, liberal rhetoric from Joy sent me over the deep end. Liberals…

The TARDs just can’t deal with the facts, hence their collective grip on reality is tenuous at best…

What is both insanely annoying and at the sametime somewhat hilarious is how they whine and stamp their feet in child like tantrums when their faces are rubbed into the reality of the day…

Is there a better example of this than Joy Behar?

I have a question, can anyone explain to me what Behar is given the description of, “comedian”?

Its sort of akin to calling Jon Stewart an unbiased historian…

Having watched and read Michelle Malkin throughout the Bush presidency, I find it laughable that Behar would even get into the “what about Bush” mode. Malkin has been quite critical of President Bush, so much so that she lost the support of many on the right side of the aisle after Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports, prescription drugs and a few more, she was pretty relentless.

Malkin is articulate, well schooled and honest about what she goes after. It was obvious that at least two from the View didn’t bother to do any research whatsoever on Malkin. They walked right into the buzz saw because they were either too lazy to do their homework on a scheduled guest or thought they could bully their way through the “wing nut” interview, or both. IMHO Behar’s ego is her worst enemy, she has yet to realize that she lost whatever she thought she had a long time ago.

@neil:
Neil, I COMPLETELY agree with your thought here. I think it’s time we start battling against the liberal media brain fog that many, many people are in and refute it the same way you just did. I have a confession…I have cow-towed before to some folks who say something negative about our mission in Iraq, fearing verbal insults. I wasn’t agreeing, but I didn’t counter it either. No more. I will now gently but firmly correct them.

The argument of “Sadaam didn’t attack us on 9/11″ has always amazed me anyway. He repeatedly violated 16 UN Security Council Resolutions, http://www.milnet.com/wh/sect2.html, and was considered a viable threat to the U.S. and allied nations with the manufacturing and use of weapons of mass destruction–period. So, the argument that Sadaam didn’t attack us reminds me of a hypothetical situation. You are relaxing in your living room, watching American Idol, or some dumb thing. Suddenly, your front door is bashed open by home invaders. While you are trying to defend yourself from them, someone else, a different thug, is yelling at your back door, threatening to break in. So, since the first set of thugs is who literally broke into your home, and is the most immediate threat, does that mean you just ignore the person yelling at the back door? O.k., maybe not the greatest analogy, but that’s what it has always reminded me of.

So, as Michelle Malkin has set a great example to no longer be intimidated by the leftists approach of if-you-say-it-enough-times-it-makes-it-so brainwashing, we should, too, dispel their lies.

MM for the win. The sad part tho, after she left the stooges (View hosts)  thought they won. QQ

Gaffa #21:

Let me guess….Saddam was behind 9/11. That’s like blaming Thailand for Pearl Harbor.

Actually, a better analogy would be “blaming Germany for Pearl Harbor”.

SoCal Chris #26:

The argument of “Sadaam didn’t attack us on 9/11″ has always amazed me anyway.

What you should ask your friends, Chris, is whether or not President Bush ever said Saddam did attack us on 9/11.

@Wordsmith:

You are exactly right, Wordsmith. President Bush didn’t ever say that. What disturbes me is how ridiculous the argument was, dismissing completely that Sadaam was a threat worthy enough of his removal. This is the statement from the Bush Whitehouse Archives in answer to that:

While President Bush has made clear that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks, his decision to remove Saddam from power cannot be viewed in isolation from the attacks. It was clear to President Bush, members of both political parties, and many leaders around the world that after 9/11, we could not risk allowing a sworn enemy of America to have weapons of mass destruction, as intelligence agencies around the world believed Saddam did. The Administration went to the United Nations, which unanimously passed Resolution 1441 calling on Saddam Hussein to disclose and disarm, and offered Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with the demands of the world. When he refused, the President acted with a coalition of nations to protect the American people and liberated 25 million Iraqis.

.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/mideast/

@Gaffa

We invaded Iraq for mostly different reasons. SoCal already explained, Saddam and his regime were a definite threat to America and allies so I wont elaborate any more… but, we do know that that country had very strong ties within the al qaeda network (the group that pulled off 9-11). How do I know this? Because, I was there, Gaffa. Since our presence in Iraq, there network, leadership and countless amounts of resources (i.e. weapons caches, IED making facilities, etc) have been crushed.

So, yes… I believe in the cause of the war in Iraq. And guess what? Had we not taken him out when we did, there’s a very good chance he would have acted up AGAIN in the future like he did back in 91.

Gaffa, I hate to be the one to point out your obvious stupidity with your comment:

“you were in Iraq just before 9/11″?

May I remind you that the ISG (as in Iraq Survey Group) and supporting troops were there and witnessed both documents from Saddam’s regime, and witnesses verbally, that give us a history of what went on before we were there? For example, one of the early, and best books, on the ISG Harmony/ISG docs was written by Ray Robison. Another one who “was there” and witnessed the truth when they uncovered the evidence.

… shooting fish in a barrel…

@Curt

Thanks:)

@MataHarley
I’ll ignore your cheap shots for now – and I’ll go through Curt’s links over the weekend. It may surprise you but I don’t follow every FA post nor does it seem I (or many else on here or otherwise) have the time and ability to track down as much info you are able to (e.g. the Palin ethic complaints). Good for you (no sarcasm intended). However when looked at detail – statements based on cited ‘evidence’ can ’sometimes’ be overblown in its interpretation and the relevant parts need separating from those that are irrelevant etc. For example the sorry piece of cr*p that was the Downing St Dossier. I’m not disputing that there are separate reasons for the Iraq War – and I’m not disputing there were Al-Qaeda links with Saddam but my belief in what I have seen is the links were tenuous – certainly compared to other countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) which remain intact. Nevertheless I will read those links and dig deeper and get back to you on my thoughts.

Meanwhile check this out…

Prince Turki al-Faisal. [Source: Publicity photo]Bin Laden, recently returned to Saudi Arabia, has been placed under house arrest for his opposition to the continued presence of US soldiers on Saudi soil. [PBS Frontline, 2001] Controversial author Gerald Posner claims that a classified US intelligence report describes a secret deal between bin Laden and Saudi Intelligence Minister Prince Turki al-Faisal at this time. Although bin Laden has become an enemy of the Saudi state, he is nonetheless too popular for his role with the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to be easily imprisoned or killed. According to Posner, bin Laden is allowed to leave Saudi Arabia with his money and supporters, but the Saudi government will publicly disown him. Privately, the Saudis will continue to fund his supporters with the understanding that they will never be used against Saudi Arabia. The wrath of the fundamentalist movement is thus directed away from the vulnerable Saudis. [Posner, 2003, pp. 40-42] Posner alleges the Saudis “effectively had [bin Laden] on their payroll since the start of the decade.” [Time, 8/31/2003] This deal is reaffirmed in 1996 and 1998. Bin Laden leaves Saudi Arabia in the summer of 1991, returning first to Afghanistan

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a94familydisown

If what Posner is saying is true then why isn’t US at war with Saudi Arabia?

@GaffaUK #40:

I’ll ignore your cheap shots for now – and I’ll go through Curt’s links over the weekend. It may surprise you but I don’t follow every FA post

I was actually thinking the “similar” thing, as Mata. You don’t have to have followed “every thread” to have come across a mention here of the Iraqi Perspectives Project with links to relevant posts and source itself. I was quite flabbergasted too that you’d “run to the Duelfer Report” (soooo 2004) which explored the issue of wmd search not “’strong ties’ the Saddam Regime had with the Al Qaeda network before 9/11″; rather than to the more recent Pentagon-funded study that examines some of the translated documents from the Harmony Database. I think FA is one of the great repositories of information and alnaysis when it comes to Saddam/al Qaeda/wmd/intell.

As for Saudi Arabia, they have definitely been a problem in exporting wahhabism and creating a breeding ground for extremism and terrorism. But they have also since, joined “with us, not against us” in the war on terror and have been a strong partner and ally since 9/11 in the capture and killing of al Qaeda operatives. The Saudi government is just as threatened, probably more so, by al Qaeda, as we are. From May 2003 through Feb 2006, their cities have experienced terror attacks at the hands of al Qaeda. The Saudis, in return, have been aggressive in a multi-pronged approach to dealing with them, including public awareness campaigns, legal reforms, educational reforms, and religious moderation.

Just last month, they tried 323 of 991 al Qaeda suspects under Islamic law by judges schooled in wahhibism….live by the Sharia, die by the Sharia…

But he’s a brithead….not an aus…

First, Gaff… do not confuse the Duelfer horse manure with the ISG/Harmony docs, which were original documents confiscated after the fall of Saddam (what we could get before they destroyed it, anyway). There is still, to date, only a small percentage translated. But what has been translated (plus more) was first covered by Ray Robison, former ISG member in Iraq, in his book, Both in One Trench. It was published Nov 2007.

March 2008, the following year, the Iraqi Perspectives Project released their five volume report, linked here at FAS, with analyses of Saddam’s relationships with the jihad movements based on the documents’ translations. (not just AQ, since AQ is an ever morphing “association” of terrorist movements). When originally linked via ABC, they labeled the PDF the Pentagon VI report.

“Volume 1 examines the relationships between the regime of Saddam Hussein and terrorism in its local, regional, and global context. Volumes 2 through 4 contain the English translations and detailed summaries of the original Iraqi documents cited in Volume 1. Volume 5 contains additional background and supporting documents.”

I suggest you read about Saddam’s use of the jihad movements as an unofficial state weapon back to after the first Gulf War. I also highly recommend Robison’s book, as it a primer on the big players in that region of the world, and their relationships. Quite the eye opener in itself.

INRE your “cheap shots” comment. May I remind you of your snippy come on first? ala

I’ll take a look at the Duelfer Report later to see what ’strong ties’ the Saddam Regime had with the Al Qaeda network before 9/11 and get back to you.

Not only a snipe of a phrase you delivered, but you are clueless as to the Duelfer Report’s purpose… THat being to report on their findings of the WMD program status (not Saddam’s relationship with jihad movements in the region) in Iraq immediately after Saddam’s deposition. The Duelfer report was released Sept 2004. A completely different report on a completely different subject, and all done prior to translation of the Saddam regime documents.

Considering the focus of that document is the WMD status, it’s unlikely you’ll find anything about Saddam’s long term relationship with Zawahiri, and the other jihad movements. You might as well be looking for what happened to Mr. Spock in the text of Alice in Wonderland.

@GaffaUK

Tell me you’re joking. Aren’t you? Wilkapedia is not a fact verified information database. Wilkipedia entries are written by anonymous web-heads and are sometimes chock full of inaccuracies, wrong data, bias and even outright fabrications, and this is ESPECIALLY true for any Wilkapedia entry of a political nature. If you are relying on Wilkapedia for your research in political discussions you might as well be doing all your fact finding by going to a seance.

Trouble is with forums – is that info isn’t succinct.

I apologize if that wasn’t succinct enough for you. It’s an unfortunate circumstantial fact of life that becoming better informed sometimes requires some extensive reading, don’t you know?

Of course, if you want us to be really “succinct”, how about this:

There were ties between Saddam’s regime and the al Qaeda network.

Succinct enough for you?

Bush never said Saddam had a hand in orchestrating the events of 9/11, but there are connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Can you understand why the first half and the second half of that sentence, isn’t a contradiction? That they are two different arguments put forth, with the first one being a strawman?

After typing in saddam hussein al qaeda connection in the FA search function I found a wealth of info. Such as:

This by Scott, same as what Word posted, but always read the comments, there’s always more:

No Ties Between Saddam and Al Queda Network of Terrorist Groups

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/16/no-ties-between-saddam-and-al-queda-network-of-terrorist-groups/#more-4207

This by ChrisG, might be a bit too much info for Gaff to take in in one sitting:

Why Iraq

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/10/26/why-iraq/

Every time I go into the archives I wind up spending a lot of time, bookmark a lot of stuff to return to and always, always find things I’ve never seen before such as the following from one of Curt’s past posts:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a 37 year old Iraqi citizen, was a greeter at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia in August 2000 (I know, sounds kinda like wal-mart but apparently greeters are quite common in Southeast Asia). How was he hired to be a greeter? Ahmed had told associates that he had been hired by contact’s in the Iraqi embassy. What’s unusual is that it was this contact, not his employer, who told him when and where to report to.

In late December of 1999 the CIA, NSA and The State Department all received intelligence that indicated there would be a Al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in early January of 2000. The NSA had intercepted communications from those tied to the 1998 Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings. The information was incomplete but did contain the names of three people, Khalid, Nawaf, and Salem.

The CIA and Malaysian intelligence set up a joint operation to track the meeting. They got many photographs of the principals arriving. Principals such as Khalid al Mihdhar (A known al-Qaeda associate), Nawaf al Hazmi, Yazid Sufaat (another known al-Qaeda associate) and Ramzi bin al Shibh. An interesting note about Ramzi, he would later brag to be the “coordinator of the holy tuesday operation” (9/11).

Ahmed was told to work the day these guys showed up. After greeting these fine folks Ahmed didn’t go back to work but left with them to the meeting. The meeting ended on Jan 8th and Ahmed quit on the 10th.

The purpose of this meeting? The planning of attack on the USS Cole and 9/11. Malaysian and American intelligence bear this out. Don’t believe it? Then guess who was on flight 77 on 9/11? Nawaf al Hazmi, his brother Salem and Khalid al Mihdhar…that’s right, the same folks photographed upon their arrival for the above meeting.

On Sept 17th, 2001 authorities in Qatar arrested Ahmed and found a huge amount of information on high level terrorists with strong ties to al-Qaeda and indirect links to Iraq.

Among his contacts? Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, the brother of 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Musab Yasin, the brother of the 93 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin. Interestingly Musab was harbored by Iraq for a decade after the 93 bombing.

Want more? When he was arrested he had the telephone number for Mamdouh Mahmud Salim. The number was to the desk of Taba Investments, one of the best known front companies used by Osama Bin Laden.

So you have a known Iraqi citizen being paid by the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur, attending a meeting by known al-Qaeda members, some of whom later turn up on one of the planes on 9/11. After 9/11 he is arrested and found to have information on some high level al-Qaeda contacts who have direct links with Iraq. Add all this up and what does it tell ya? Maybe Iraq had links with al-Qaeda after all.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/06/the-truth-on-the-iraqal-qaeda/

All the above is not even a drop in the bucket when considering all the work and research the FA team has done about Iraq, every one of the writers on this blog has contributed a wealth of accurate, well studied information. We can’t even say they forget more than we will ever know, because they don’t forget, ever. It’s extremely foolish to go up against them.

@MataHarley

So taking a look at that Iraq Perspectives – and only 5% relates directly to Al Qaeda.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.

Page 15

In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia.44 The overlap between bin Laden’s and Saddam’s interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

Page 18

When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda – as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long term vision. A directive (Extract 24) from the Director for International Intelligence in the IIS to an Iraqi operative in Bahrain orders him to investigate a particular terrorist group there, The Army of Muhammed.
Extract 24
[July 2001]
We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army of Muhammad…had threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests…We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives, and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom they belong and with whom they are connected. Give this subject you utmost attention.

Page 34

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden.
Extract 25
[9 July 2001]
Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the same as bin Laden…[83]
A later note [84] lists the group’s objectives, among them:
• Jihad in the name of God.
• Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interest anywhere in the world.
• Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
• Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for Israel.
• Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and threatening tankers carrying oil to them.
A later memorandum from the same collection [85] to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavouring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement it’s objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities established. The ISIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is and offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization”.
An example of indirect cooperation is the movement lead by Osama bin Laden. During the 1990s, both Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the United States, out of Muslim lands (or in the view of Saddam, the “Arab nation”). Both wanted to create a single powerful state that would take its place a global superpower.
But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted – and still wants – to restore the Islamic caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the secular ruler of a united Arab nation. These competing visions made any significant long-term compromise between them highly unlikely. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of “apostate” regime – a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges. In pursuit of their own separate but surprisingly “parallel” visions, Saddma and bin Laden often found a common enemy in the United States.
The Saddam regime was very concerned about the internal threat
posed by various Islamist movements. Crackdowns, arrests, and monitoring of
Islamic radical movements were common in Iraq. However, Saddam’s security
organizations and bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims, at
least for the short tenn. Considerable operational overlap was inevitable when
monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the regional groups involved in
terrorism. Saddam provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arab
nationalists in the region. Osama bin Laden provided training and motivation for
violent revolutionary Islamists in the region. They were recruiting within the same
demographic, spouting much the same rhetoric, and promoting a common historical
narrative that promised a return to a glorious past. That these movements (panArab
and pan-Islamic) had many similarities and strategic parallels does not mean
they saw themselves in that light. Nevertheless, these similarities created more
than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common
cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.

B. The Terror “Business” Model of Saddam
Hussein
Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was
spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic
terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign
“fighters” drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians,
Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups
that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally
shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives. 97

Saddam was a pragmatist when it came to personal and state relationships.
He and many members of his regime understood that whatever the
benefits of a relationship, there was always a potential for internal and external
costs for associating too closely with some of these groups. Saddam’s reaction to
this concern often swung like a pendulum, from arresting members of Wahabi
sects to “extending lines of relations” to a new radical Kurdish Islamic group. 98
In one case, Iraq’s ambassador in Switzerland, who was also
Saddam’s half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti, recommended that the Director of the lIS
meet directly with an Egyptian who had strong connections to “Islamic parties
and anti-Western Islamic organizations,” and who was offering his assistance in
brokering an alliance. But the director of the lIS department responsible for Arab
issues did not concur with the ambassador’s recommendation and cautioned in an
internal memorandum that a meeting at such a level would “not serve the current
Iraqi situation… and will make us lose our main target.” He went on to note that
working with the religious parties was dangerous at this time because they were
“associated with the religious terror, which Hezbollah and Iran are practicing
…and it is provoking the West. .. ,
Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam’s regional
terror enterprise and al Qaeda’s more global one are somewhat analogous to the
Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of
families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United
States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market. However, neither
cartel was reluctant to cooperate with the other when it came to the pursuit of
a common objective-expanding and facilitating their illicit trade.

Page 61 onwards

So nothing in there particuarly surprises me nor goes against what I currently believe – in that Saddam wasn’t behind 9/11 and that there may be ties with Al Qaeda (which I have said before) – they were primarily enemies and the ties were certainly not “very strong” ones as Neil states. If the ties were very strong then no doubt there would of been regular contact at the highest levels between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, Saddam would of no doubt known and actively helped with 9/11. Instead we have what seems the majority of evidence – in regards to the small proportion relating to Al Qaeda – is of Saddam gathering intel on the various terrorist groups, some affiliated with Al Qaeda – particualarly when their goals coincide. Bush & Cheney spent a lot of time and money desperately trying to find a smoking gun of an impilicit and operational relationship between the two. As this report clearly states – they found no smoking gun. I suggest the US invades Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan & Egypt and spent more billions and go through millions of their internal documents – I’m sure they will find more than a handful of direct connections to Al Qaeda than they have here!

In fact – I wonder if everyone on here outrightly condemns countries sponsoring terrorism against other countries?

America is at war with terrorism- specifically a group called Al Queda. But Al Queda is not really a terrorist group. It’s a movement- a loosely connected series of terrorist organizations- all with different skills, tactics, causes, and objectives, but they are all connected by their enemies- NOT their religious interpretations. They all have warped versions of Islam at their core, but the specific manner or degree of religious extremism varies. Some terrorist groups are largely secular, and others insanely religious. Under Osama Bin Laden’s leadership, the groups form an Islamic movement bent on fighting Israel, Jews, Americans, Christians, and the economic power of the industrialized western nations. This is not a theory. This is Bin Laden’s description.

The name of his Islamic Front is known to most Americans as Al Queda. It is also known around the world as:
al Qaeda.
Al Quaida.
Al Qadr,
“The Base,”
Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites,
International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders,
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places,
Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Shrines,
And Islamic Sal.

The Al Queda leadership- including Osama Bin Laden- have worked with affiliated terrorist organizations by providing funding, training, training camps, logistical support, and on occasion through direct actions- at the very least through leadership, propaganda, and the creation of a common cause. Al Queda itself is estimated to have nearly 5000 direct members, but there are tens of thousands- perhaps hundreds of thousands- of varying militant Islamic extremists who train and kill with Al Queda as either allies or at the very least co-conspirators.

Some (just a few) of these affiliated terrorist groups that are allied with or “part of” Al Queda are:

Ulema Union of Afghanistan
Armed Islamic Group
Saafi Group for Proselytism and Combat
Al-Jihad
Groupe Roubaix
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya
Partisans Movement
Jemaah Islamiah
Bayt al-Imam
Asbat al Ansar
Hezbollah
Lebanese Partisans League
Libyan Islamic Group
Pakaistan
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba
Islamic Jihad
Moro Islamic Liberation Front
Abu Sayyff
Al-Ittihad
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Al-Jihad Group
*Mohammed’s Army
*Fatah Revolutionary Council (FRC),
*Arab Revolutionary Brigades (ARB),
*Black September (Organization- BSO),
*Black June Organziation (BJO),
*Revolutionary Organzation of Socialism Muslims (ROSM)
*Ansar Al Islam
*Ansar Al Sunni
*Fayadeen Al Saddam
*The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK)
*People’s Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI),
*National Council of Resistance (NCR),
*Muslim Iranian Student’s Society (front organization used to garner financial support)
*Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) branch/Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)/branch-Abbu Abbas faction
(Note: “*” indicates terrorist group in pre-war Iraq)

Pg 206-208, Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda, by Scott Malensek.

@MataHarley

Whilst people have had trouble defining Al-Qaeda and it’s boundaries – it does exist. Not sure the doctor metaphor works. Not all doctors are American and not all American doctors are in the AMA but doctors is a recognised profession and AMA is a recognised group.

And Al-Qaeda is not a group which includes all those who want a jihad. It is a fundamentalist Sunni movement – and because they may occasionally work alongside Shia terrorist groups that doesn’t make such groups like Hezbollah a part of Al-Qaeda. As an organisation it’s certainly bad enough and defined enough for the US government to label it as a terrorist organisation. I have read Al Qaeda by Jason Burke some time ago but I planning to get the Looming Tower (I believe Curt praises this – and which I heard extracts on NPR) and possibly the book by Robison you recommend.

Author Lawrence Wright also quotes this document (an exhibit from the “Tareek Osama” document presented in United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout[36]), in his book The Looming Tower. Notes of a meeting of bin Laden and others on August 20, 1988 indicate “the military base” (”al-qaeda al-askariya”), was a formal group: `basically an organized Islamic faction, its goal is to lift the word of God, to make His religion victorious.` A list of requirements for membership itemized “listening and obedient … good manners” and making a pledge (bayat) to obey superiors.

According to Wright, “[t]he name al-Qaeda was not used,” in public pronouncements like the 1998 fatwa to kill Americans and their allies[38] because “its existence was still a closely held secret.”[39] Wright writes that Al-Qaeda was formed at a August 11, 1988 meeting of “with several senior leaders” of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, (Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and others), Abdullah Azzam, and Osama bin Laden, where it was agreed to join bin Laden’s money with the expertise of the Islamic Jihad organization and continue jihad elsewhere after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.[40]

In April 2002, the group assumed the name Qa’idat al-Jihad, which means “the base of Jihad”. According to Diaa Rashwan, this was “…apparently as a result of the merger of the overseas branch of Egypt’s al-Jihad (EIJ) group, led by Ayman El-Zawahiri, with the groups Bin Laden brought under his control after his return to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s.”[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#cite_note-36

As for having the same aims – well the US government and Bin Laden had the same aim in trying to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan – that doesn’t mean they can be tarred with the same brush. As for Zawahiri – yes I would count him as Al-Qaeda. He was there at the beginning and he merged his group in with Al-Qaeda. As for Zarqawi – also yes – but I believe he joined Al-Qaeda after the Iraq invasion.

My point being is that we have to be careful not to exaggerate any ties the Saddam regime had with Al-Qaeda and not to ignore the necessary provisos where it can be shown that they were hostile towards each other. I can understand the reasons for the Iraq War (although unlike the Afghanistan War – I don’t agree with them) but I don’t think 9/11 needs to be part of of that list. Sure the US was attacked but does that mean the US should strike out against all perceived threats? If that was the case then there would be simultaneous wars happening now against a dozen countries. And if the US followed the logical path of a War of Terror where it fought every global terror group and their affilates then the US would be fighting the very groups it itself has been involved in.

Rather I would think it would be smarter to act more surgically. The poison created by Al-Qaeda lies in other places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & Egypt – supposed allies of the US. Could you imagine Saddam giving up parts of Iraq over to Al-Qaeda like nuclear armed Pakistan did recently in the Swat valley? I can’t help thinking that whilst the Iraq War may have transfered some Al-Qaeda fighters into Iraq – it also recruited many many more – whilst criminally the war in Afghanistan which was the real breeding ground of Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack became a side-show to Iraq. I believe only fools would deny that there is absolutely no connection between Saddam and terrorist groups affilated with Al Qaeda and only fools would believe there existed a very strong tie between Saddam and Al Qaeda – certainly compared to other nations in the region.

@GaffaUK:

Zarqawi contacts and cooperation with AQ predate 9-11.

From a WaPo article:

According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat, near the Iranian border.

With al Qaeda’s support, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants. At a time when al Qaeda was immersed in planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Zarqawi had other targets in mind.

In mid-2001, he returned to Kandahar to ask al Qaeda for $35,000 to finance a plan for his fighters to infiltrate Israel, according to a U.S. Treasury Department report. In early September, a few days before the hijackings in the United States, he met in Iran with a Jordanian ally and ordered him to set up a cell in Germany to strike Jewish targets there, according to files compiled by German investigators. German police broke up the group before it could carry out any attacks.

Link to the story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/09/27/AR2005040209346_2.html

According to Mary Ann Weaver, author of “Inventing al-Zarqawi,” Atlantic Monthly (July/August 2006), Zarqawi “joined forces” with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in 2001 after the U.S. began its invasion of Afghanistan. She claims he fought at Herat and Kandahar.

The U.S. contends that he fled to Iraq where he received medical treatment in 2002. I think you know the story from there but it does sound to me if Zarqawi was lured by the belief that the health care is always greener on the other side of the fence. Or maybe he just needed a safe haven and the waiting list in Canada was too long.

You should talk to U.S. District Judge Harold Baer. He answered your question way back in 2003.

So tell me Aye – do you agree with Judge Harold Baer and believe Saddam was behind 9/11?

I never said that Saddam was behind 9/11. Neither did Judge Baer. You’re trying to put words in his mouth.

The issue is the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

This is your discussion, your issue. Do try to remain focused and unconfused.

Judge Baer ruled that there was enough evidence presented to find that material support was provided to Al Qaeda by Saddam. This decision was made in 2003. That was prior to all of the other evidence which has come out since then.

Here’s what I believe:

Anyone who relies on Wiki for 90% or more of his/her arguments is fooling no one when it comes to the value/quality of his/her arguments. The article you cited from Wiki is flagged as having factual inaccuracy and neutrality problems. Yet you rely on it anyway.

That’s what is laughable here.

Finally, yes, I do believe that Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda and was providing support to them. One would have to ignore mountains of irrefutable evidence and engage in willful blindness in order to conclude otherwise.

Add Judge Baer’s judicial findings to the long list of arrows that point to Saddam and Al Qaeda being connected.

@Aye

If you believe Saddam provided material to Al Qaeda who caused 9/11 – then therefore isn’t he also behind 9/11? Why so shy? lol And if there is any evidence that the US had any connection with OBL – then would the US also be guilty? Do you believe Al Qaeda aren’t a terrorist group but just a concept like MataHarley. And do you really believe in Laurie Mylroie’s theories?

The “few actual facts” Baer refers to have been debunked.

Furthermore, the 9/11 commission stated categorically that there is no evidence that Egyptian Mohamed Atta ever met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague; in fact, mobile phone records place him in the U.S. at the supposed date of the meeting.

http://www.radio.cz/en/article/57782/limit

The facility was discussed in the leadup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a result of a campaign by Iraqi defectors associated with the Iraqi National Congress to assert that the facility was a terrorist training camp. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has since established that both the CIA and the DIA concluded that there was no evidence to support these claims. A DIA analyst told the Committee, “The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa’ida.” Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel noted in November 2005 that “After the war, U.S. officials determined that a facility in Salman Pak was used to train Iraqi anti-terrorist commandos.”[Seattle Times, 1 November 2005, p. A5]. And PBS Frontline – who originally carried many of the allegations of Iraqi defectors – similarly noted that “U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility

Tell me – do you believe Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague? Do you believe that Salman Pak was a terrorist training camp which trained Al-Qaeda?

As for Wikipedia – I find it generally more balanced with linked reference than the opinions expressed on here. Again what do you dispute as wholly inaccurate in the below?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

The blunder from down under strikes again.

Willfully blind to the facts.

Willfully ignoring the evidence.

Willfully twisting and tweaking the comments of others to fit his weak tea, easily destroyed, tissue paper arguments.

Some people never learn.

@MataHarley

2: Mohammed Atta, who originally proposed the 911 plot in 1996, underwent training in Iraq, courtesy of Abu Nidal… who had been Saddam’s “guest” in Iraq since 1999 – even occupying a villa supplied by Saddam’s secret service

Here’s another wikipedia page for you to chew on…

Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff spoke with current and former US officials, including an Iraqi document expert who was at that time reviewing thousands of Operation Iraqi Freedom documents, all of whom deemed the letter a probable fabrication.[9] “The problem with this, say U.S. law enforcement officials, is that the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta’s movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this period—making only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn’t begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo.”

Isikoff continued: “Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. ‘The memo is clearly nonsense,’ an INC spokesman told Newsweek.”

I know you have a vastly superior understanding than me – but do you REALLY believe that Atta was in Iraq being funded by Nidal? Are you just basing that on this discredited handwritten letter or do you have collaborative evidence to back this up?

btw…where did I state that there were no ties between Saddam & Al Qaeda?

Gaffa: btw…where did I state that there were no ties between Saddam & Al Qaeda?

Correct. What you said was there was “little, if any” prior to 911. This leaves a comment trail that at 2:59 on August 7th, you believed there was “little, if any” ties… when you said:

Gaffa:…. yet little if any hard evidence of any strong connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein regime before 9/11. Certainly nothing of an operational relationship. As a lay person wading through such tangents isn’t helpful.

Technically, the “if any” means there was no ties, and “little” preceding it gave you an out just in case there was something you may run across that blows away your “if any/no ties” statement.

Since “if any” means you had not seen anything before, I had to run with your complete phrase as meaning you have seen nothing that makes you believe there was a Saddam/AQ tie…. and if something was presented it would be but a “little”.

After going thru the Iraqi Perspectives reports and ensuing conversation, we managed to see you budge from “little if any” to “pretty sparse” and “thin” (since you don’t consider Saddam’s relationship with Zawahiri/EIJ as the same as Zawahiri/AQ) with your August 10th comment at 8:43pm, when you said:

Yes I agree – you directed me to this to specifically show the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Which is actually pretty sparse compared to the other terrorist groups. And some of this doc is about Iraqi intel rather than than active two-way relationships. I’m sure the CIA has lots of intel of terror groups. This of course is not saying that Saddam wasn’t actively involved with some of these terror groups – just that his relationship with Al Qaeda specifically was thin compared to other groups or other countries.

That is, at least, and improvement over your “little, if any” prior opinions that there were no ties, or “little” at best if something came up in the future.

And yes, Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower is the definitive account of al Qaeda’s geneology; but it’s not the end all, be all on all things al Qaeda; especially in regards to the numerous contacts and ties to Iraq. Check out Scott’s book, which I cited in comment #58.

@MataHarley

lol – you focus on the if any but you fail to take in the rest of the sentence I used – notably ‘HARD’ evidence and ‘STRONG’ connection.

In regards to the Habbush letter or memo (not sure why you are splitting hairs as it’s often refered to as a letter) – have it look at it – as it also talks about uranium shipment from Niger. Remember those other forged letters about yellowcake?

And don’t you smell a rat when an anonymous ‘leading member of Iraq’s governing council’ verifies the authenicity yet wont ‘reveal where and how they obtained it.’? Even Coughlin doesn’t know if it’s legitimate or a fake. lol. Isn’t it odd that this flimsy, most likely to be fake piece of ‘evidence’ is all there is? No photos, no flight info etc etc to link Atta being in Iraq. I’m sure you have read more on 9/11 than me – but the more I look into it – the more I find that the ‘experts’ like yourself treat dodgy disinformation like this as FACT.

As for Atta being in Prague in early April – well it could be possible that Atta used an alias, that he travelled internationally but his phone didn’t work internationally, that he gave his phone to someone else to use etc etc. But that’s not proof! That common old supposition. Lots of things COULD be possible. Bin Laden COULD have flown over himself to Prague that April, stripped naked and done a jig in Wenceslas Square at midnight as a part of a circus troupe. Doesn’t make it true. Or it could have been that the Czech security person was mistaken. Is every sighting of Atta, Bin Laden & Elvis true? Unlikely – so hence why collaborative evidence is so important. Again I’m surprise you spend anytime on such fluff. Do you really believe this to be true???

The burden of proof lies with those making such positive allegations. In the same way, the likelihood is that the Habbush Letter is faked unless there is convincing evidence otherwise – whether or not it was faked by the CIA on the orders of the White House as claimed by Ron Suskind is therefore up to Suskind to prove. Note I didn’t even bring up Susking until you did – as I’m yet to be convinced. Already ‘Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi alleged that the Pentagon was behind the forgery.’ but either way this isn’t enough proof.

@MataHarley

Gaffa, were there “hard” and “strong” evidence… aka a smoking gun… there would be no need for debate or dissent. I did not “fail to take in the rest of your sentence”. I gave you the benefit of the doubt you weren’t that unbelievably stupid.

Leaving aside the stupid & the duh moments which add nothing to the debate…I believe there is plenty of debate over smoking guns or hard evidence. For instance I believe there is enough hard evidence to say that Al Qaeda caused 9/11 and yet there are plenty of people who believe that is what either caused by Bush or by Saddam!

Don’t care about Atta in Prague, nor was my intent to cast doubt on whether he was in Prague or not. What I find more interesting was his relationship with Abu Nidal and his terrorist organization.

Possibly but Abu Nidal is a sideshow – he isn’t part of Al Qaeda and I haven’t seen any decent evidence to connect him with Mohammed Atta.

First of all, IMHO, I find great differences between a “letter”… ala voluntary correspondence between individuals… and a “memo”… intra-agency communiques for business purposes. But perhaps that’s another of those “Queen’s English” moments….

Type in Habbush Letter and then type in Habbish Memo into Google – or your favourite search engine and you will see the hit rate is pretty much the same. I’m sure business and government can communicate via letter. To me that semantics and pretty much irrelevant. Main thing is that it is probably fake.

And surely you don’t believe that I’ve never seen this memo, nor explored this in the past… or even in the recent conversations. It’s not like it didn’t make the news, and I don’t have my archived bookmarks

lol – I was giving you the benefit of the doubt – I hoping that maybe you weren’t so naive to know all the info about this letter/memo and then come to the conclusion that it’s a fact.

Comparisons of national security and assessing intel… where there is rarely a smoking gun… with criminal lawsuits and evidence in a US court of law is so amazingly anal that I have no idea where to start… so I won’t. Were national security for any country to pivot on the “burden of proof” required by the US judicial system, we wouldn’t have make it past WWII.

In this regards I’m not talking about US court of law (we are not dealing with people being locked up without trial here) – but what you and I consider what evidence is likely to be true and verified by reputable sources and cross checked with collobrative evidence. It appears your threshold for beliving certain evidence as fact is pretty low – or at least when it comes to evidence which support your world view;)